In Hindmarch v North-East Ambulance NHS Foundation Trust [2025] EAT 87, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld a tribunal’s decision that an employer had not failed to make reasonable adjustments when it declined to provide a higher-grade face mask to a non-emergency ambulance driver with severe anxiety about COVID-19.
The case centres on Sections 20(3) and 20(5) of the Equality Act 2010, which impose a duty on employers to make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees. The ruling reinforces the principle that such adjustments must have a real prospect of alleviating the disadvantage in question to be legally required.
Mr Hindmarch, who worked in patient transport services, refused to return to work during the COVID-19 pandemic unless supplied with an FFP3 mask, rather than the standard-issue FFP2 mask for non-emergency drivers. He argued that the enhanced mask would help him manage his anxiety about catching COVID-19 when transporting infected patients. The Trust declined, relying on national guidance and medical advice that the FFP3 mask would not provide meaningful additional protection in his role, and would likely not ease his clinically significant anxiety. Crucially, Mr Hindmarch never gave a clear assurance that he would return to work if given the mask. He remained on long-term sick leave and was ultimately dismissed on grounds of capability.
The tribunal rejected claims of both failure to make reasonable adjustments and unfair dismissal. It found that providing the FFP3 mask would not have removed the disadvantage or enabled Mr Hindmarch to return to work. The EAT upheld this conclusion, noting that the duty to make adjustments under the Equality Act only arises where there is a realistic prospect that the adjustment would be effective. This is consistent with established case law, including Paulley v FirstGroup plc [2017] UKSC 4, and with the EHRC Employment Statutory Code of Practice.
The EAT also dismissed arguments that the tribunal had misidentified the disadvantage or applied the wrong legal test. While the language of sections 20(3) and 20(5) differs, the tribunal had reached the same conclusion under both: the adjustment requested was unlikely to make any practical difference. On the unfair dismissal claim, the EAT found no error in the tribunal’s reasoning. It was entitled to conclude that the employer had acted reasonably in treating the prolonged absence and refusal to return as sufficient grounds for dismissal, particularly where the proposed adjustment would not have changed the outcome.
This case highlights that while employers must consider adjustments seriously, they are not required to implement measures that are unlikely to address the core disadvantage. The effectiveness of any proposed adjustment remains central to assessing reasonableness under the Equality Act.
Mr K Hindmarch v North East Ambulance NHS Foundation Trust [2025] EAT 87.
